I guess that’s why these things are self-identified.
I think you are wrong here. The amount of genetic material a neice/nephew will carry is close to half. In simple form,
- siblings share close to 100% of genetic material (P), not half.
- the child will carry will carry ~ 1/2 the parent’s genetic material.
therefore the neice/nephew will carry 1/2 P, or close to half of the aunt/uncle’s genetic material.
The example was illustrative or how the survival of genetic material is more complex than it appears at first blush. It’s not a thesis. That said I believe there have been studies of the genetic benefit of non-reproducing aunts/uncles in some animals. Similarly the high survival rates of modern humans to adulthood is a small and recent effect and probably not statistically significant.
Again your alternate explanation is a good one, but I think more confined to a more recent times.
Just two, but how do they fit them in there?
It would have to be a mighty large light bulb.
But according to people such as Spectrum who have researched the factors that cause homosexuality from the perspective of those who have first-hand knowledge, “it seems to be that there has to be a genetic predisposition, mixed with some sort of environmental trigger”. He continues, “even that environmental trigger is likely pre-natal or in the first few months of life”.
The full post may be found here.
Thus, the genetic component is for many people central, something that “has to be”, with which other factors, such as the hormonal embryonic soup, are admixed.
Hopefully, continued rigorous scientific research will help bring light and knowledge into this area of the natural world, thereby dispelling at least some of our current ignorance.
Right, but sometimes that type of identification is flawed. For example, as someone mentioned I believe, Kinsey might hand you a form that says, “Have you ever kissed someone of the same sex on the lips.” And you’re answer may be yes, but you may not identify yourself as homosexual. But they do.
People don’t necessarily have a personal identity that matches their behavior. So there’s no way to get a meaningful count or percentage of anything.
And while I’m ranting, I think looking for a genetic basis to homosexuality is a huge mistake too. It’s another lose/lose situation. If it IS genetically linked (which I tend to think might be part of it, but who knows) then we can consider it a “genetic disease” which can be prevented and cured. If we determine somehow that it’s not genetic, then we can ostracize those who choose to live as homosexuals or the parents or whoever who “made them that way.”
It shouldn’t matter why someone has whatever sexual preferences they have…they have every right to have them. I don’t know if I have a genetic predisposition to eat chocolate ice cream, or if my environment influenced me by inundating me with chocolate ice cream ads. I only know that I have every right to eat whatever the heck I want. Ditto for what I do in bed.
Or on the kitchen table.
L
But what sort of message would choosing to live in ignorance regarding aspects of sexuality send out? And what ramifications might it have in terms of extension of such censorship to other areas of study? Truth makes free, no? The alternatives, however enticing, are invariably dangerous.
Hmmm…I see your point. And I honestly don’t think stiffling research is ever a solution to anything. I guess I just see this as research that could be used for bad purposes no matter what the outcome is. Sure, go ahead and DO the research, and let everyone know what the results are. But I think we should be careful how we end up using those results. The same isn’t true of most other aspects of sexuality. I mean, no one is going to be up in arms trying to cure the disease if we were to find out that a preference for oral sex was genetic.
Also, I’m afraid that the studies don’t make us any less ignorant of reality than if we hadn’t done them at all…because of the difficulties in accuracy already suggested. Are we really that ignorant NOW about what goes on around us?
But I’m referring to research into what causes certain people to be homosexual, not how many people identify or are identified as homosexuals.
I’d like to think that everyone that conducts such research does not believe homosexuality is a disease. To drag this up (not you - others) as a reason not to conduct research is manipulative and unscientific.
I’m not sure if it’s in The Naked Ape or in one of his other books, but zoologist Desmond Morris suggested back in the early 70s, I believe, at the height of the popularity of the notion that the earth soon would be overpopulated beyond all hope with H. sapiens writhing over each other a hundred feet deep the world over thanks to the supposed geometric progression of human reproduction, that homosexuals [not unlike monks, nuns, those who are infertile or physically unable to copulate, and the really really severely, profoundly ugly–Ed.] “are valuable NON-contributors to the population explosion”. In other words, homosexuals were being relied upon to save the planet, simply by not reproducing themselves. Now even this benefit is in doubt, since we’ve figured out ways around it, and the percentage of homosexuals in the overall population appears to be too small at around 5% or whatever to have any significant non-reproductive effect.
FWIW, I don’t know anybody who isn’t either grossly ignorant or a repressed religious zealot who thinks that having a single or a few experimental sexual interludes with members of the same gender makes a person homosexual by definition. Heck, it’s been every weekend for 25 years now, and what my wife doesn’t know won’t hurt her. Just kidding.
Also FWIW, I have on more than one occasion heard homosexual males opine in all seriousness, without irony, that ALL people are actually homosexual at bottom (if you’ll pardon the pun), but most of them are just in denial, their homophobia dominating their natural tendencies in order to allow them the comfort of conforming to societal norms and expectations. I have asked these gentlemen whenever possible if they have ever studied biology or genetics, and they have answered in the negative. (This survey is not scientific.)
Untrue. Siblings are generally considered to share 50% of their genetic material, as an average. You get a random half of dad’s genes and a random half of mom’s genes, so it’s generally assumed that you’ll get half of the genes your father gave your sibling, etc.
I suggest you do some research into scientific/psychology journals (NOT magazines), then. Anything we give you here is going to be “Well, I heard…”
One of my psychology teachers says that research shows that the brains of women who have identified as lesbians differ from that of women who identify as homosexual. I honestly don’t remember the specifics, though I do recall it having something to do with chemical production.
There’s a lot of credible research out there if you know how to find it. There are many many studies that show differences. And it would not be a “disease” anyway, it’s a predisposition, unless you consider “aggression” to be a disease because it can be tied to certain hormones and their levels.
And as for the numbers… Who the hell knows? Even if you are “out” among your friends, family and community, it’s entirely another thing to tell the government. Whether the government really is/isn’t showing bias against homosexuals is irrelevent; People are afraid of it.
There are just too many factors that prevent any real certainty. Closetedness, partial closetedness, government wariness, shame, paranoia, privacy… You can’t characterize homosexuals as blatantly “out” or in total denial. There are many degrees in between and they don’t necessarily dictate one behavior.
It also depends on what you mean by homosexual. I don’t think 20% is too high if we’re talking about anyone who ever engaged in a single homosexual encounter/experimentation. But that would be a poor classification because, by that rule, a woman’s status as a lesbian would be undermined by her history of heterosexual relationships as a youth. So I can only assume we’re talking about people who are primarily attracted to members of their own gender. 20% may be too high in that case, but 2% strikes me as quite low as well.
Isn’t there an element of sex just plain sex here? You can have great heterosexual sex without much in the way of attraction… I have to imagine the same is true for homosexuals, errr, people that may or may not be homosexuals but that have homosexual sex despite being primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Are you compelled to have sex with anybody who has the appropriate sexual orientation? 
**ChoosyChips **-- (May I call you ChoosyChips instead of M(s). CeilingWhacks?)
I just want to make two points. First is to point out that there are characteristics which are neither genetic, nor completely behaviorally/culturally determined.
The easiest example is, say, a missing limb due to accident. Obviously, the person can’t just choose to grow a new one, but it isn’t genetically determined. There are plenty of other examples – allergies comes to mind – though many of them may well end up having a genetic component (for all I know susceptibility to allergies may have a genetic component, but I find it hard to imagine that having a reaction to a specific allergen is genetic).
And it’s also important to note that having a genetic component to a characteristic is far different from being absolutely determined by that gene. Height is somewhat genetically determined, but childhood nutrition also plays a huge role in determining final height. Left/right-handedness is maybe the best example: there’s some evidence it’s genetically influenced, but not absolutely determined, while there is also a clear cultural component, in that many people are trained/forced into right-handedness.
Of course, I agree with you that it wouldn’t be easy to mass-communicate these two points if a major discovery about a biological basis of homosexuality is made in today’s cultural climate.
Only if they’re identical twins …
You guys are forgetting an important parameter here: was the light bulb blown first?